Editorial

Out of 750 readers, 741 users do not read CoN.Nine users replied to issue III.22.

Of those nine, four users read CoN but missed the questionnaire.

Of the remaining five, four read it through e-mail (1 through Pine, 3 through Eudora), while one with the eyes in his head. One user occasionally prints out his issues to read them on the subway/bus.

They all also find CoN humorous, entertaining and that it has a feeling of true stories of life they can all relate to. A few find some articles a great bore, while other articles a great read.

In future issues of CoN they expect:"redheads and ways to keep alive with the least effort, while never losing that tingly feeling in my pants","Why Canadians hate or are better than Americans issue",what we already got,one of the articles that appears here (number 4 to be precise),and lastly "LOTSA PORN!".

Of the four e-mails sent in reply to CoN, three deserve a mention. The first is from BloSSoMEdr, an AOL user no less:

> alt.ezines.

Could you send me a link to alt.ezines? Thankies! :D

news:alt.ezines

The second e-mail is from J. Bell, who writes:

Doesn't "bi-weekly" mean twice a week? Correct me if I'm wrong...it's late here, and I may not be in a sound state of mind. But,I'm pretty sure that you're looking for "bi-monthly." Right?Every other week, not two times a week? Anyhow, I thought Imight as well drop in a line about that.Being the good citizen that I am. (yeah, blow that one outyour ass while your at it :)

According to the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary - tenth edition, the term bi-weekly began to mean "twice a week" in 1832. In 1890 circa, the meaning changed to "every two weeks". However, bi-weekly can be used, without error, for both, although it is most commonly used and understood for serial publications, which are sent once every two weeks.

The third e-mail is from Jones Davis, in regards to the Y2K bug:

I stumbled upon your e-zine by mistake, subscribed to it,and now it seems to me that C.o.N. is a pretty open-minded publication (contrary to the popular belief of e-zines beinghigly censored publications).

You mentioned in Issue 22 that Issue 23 will deal with theY2K bug. Here is what I think will happen on January 1st, 2000, 12:00:00 AM Local Time. These are my own estimated figures:

1. 30% of the North American companies will not be y2k compliant.

a) 90% of these companies will invest large amounts of money to buy updated versions of the software that they are using.This includes user licenses for those programs.

b) 10% of the companies which use custom-designed software will hire highly-paid programmers, who will do the updating job for the next 3-12 months (by 2001 these companies will havetheir custom software fully updated, meantime they will losemoney)

2. 75% of the European companies will not be y2k compliant.

a) 99% of these companies will buy updated (y2k compliant) versionsof the software they have been using, or they will switch tobuggy MICROSOFT Y2K compliant software. Basically, this meansthey will lose their data at one point anyways.

i) 75% of these companies will afford this software with noproblems (This is Europe, mind you)ii) 25% of these companies will not afford the new software andwill go out of business.

b) 1% of the European companies will work on updating their custom-designed software.

3. China will, as always, supply the Western Market with pirated y2k-compliant software.

4. 101% of the Japanese companies are already y2k compliant, probablysince 1979. Basically, the Japanese will/have fixed the problemswithout much hassle or losses.

5. The rest of the world will buy new software, and very few companieswill update their old software packages.

6. Microsoft will start a new hype/scare about y2k and will use thisstrategy to sell new buggy software that will probably emerge aroundSeptember 1999.

We hope that our predictions will be close to reality.Sincerly,

Jones Davis,

I'll leave you now with this first edition of Volume 4. While I have to thank Lilith DamHareIs for being, as usual, so amazingly creative, I have to say that neither me, or anyone else, was able to come up with anything decent about the Y2K.

We have no clue on what the next issue should be about. If you feel you have a suggestion or an subject that would make for another issue of CoN, feel free to e-mail it to CoN Editorial, by hitting reply to this posting.

CON.CA · A Canadian electronic journal. · Published when we get around it
· ISSN 1482-0471 · https://con.ca/ · Hosted by theorem.ca
· Email con AT con DOT ca · we almost never respond · if we ever acquire a purpose, you'll be the first to know ·
Read our Privacy Policy · Powered by scraps of time and espresso beans.
· Page rendered in 0.1169 seconds on Sat May 25 10:13:21 2019 EST.